Next Article in Journal
Resourceful Utilization of Cow Hair in the Preparation of Iron Tailing-Based Foam Concrete
Next Article in Special Issue
Use of Organic Materials to Limit the Potential Negative Effect of Nitrogen on Maize in Different Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Chemistry and Production Technology of Hallstatt Period Glass Beads from Bohemia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Biochar Modification by Vitamin C, Hydrogen Peroxide or Silver Nanoparticles on Its Physicochemistry and Tetracycline Removal
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Sorbents in the Remediation of Soil Exposed to the Pressure of Cadmium and Cobalt

Department of Soil Science and Microbiology, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-727 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(16), 5738; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15165738
Submission received: 27 June 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 17 August 2022 / Published: 19 August 2022

Abstract

:
An undesirable side effect of economic progress is increasingly severe pollution with heavy metals, responsible for the degradation of ecosystems, including soil resources. Hence, this research focused on examining six adsorbents in order to distinguish a reactive mineral with the highest capacity to remediate soils contaminated with heavy metals. To this end, the soil was polluted with Co2+ and Cd2+ by applying the metals in concentrations of 100 mg kg−1 d.m. The extent of soil equilibrium disturbances was assessed by evaluating the response of the soil microbiome, activity of seven soil enzymes, and the yields of Helianthus annuus L. Six sorbents were evaluated: a molecular sieve, expanded clay (ExClay), halloysite, zeolite, sepiolite and biochar. Co2+ and Cd2+ proved to be significant inhibitors of the soil’s microbiological and biochemical parameters. Organotrophic bacteria among the analysed groups of microorganisms and dehydrogenases among the soil enzymes were most sensitive to the effects of the metals. Both metals significantly distorted the growth and development of sunflower, with Co2+ having a stronger adverse impact on the synthesis of chlorophyll. The molecular sieve and biochar were the sorbents that stimulated the multiplication of microorganisms and enzymatic activity in the contaminated soil. The activity of enzymes was also stimulated significantly by zeolite and sepiolite, while the growth of Helianthus annuus L. biomass was stimulated by the molecular sieve, which can all be considered the most useful reactive materials in the remediation of soils exposed to Co2+ and Cd2+.

1. Introduction

Soil is a natural resource with an immeasurable value, albeit it is also finite and non-renewable [1]. Rapid and uncontrollable urbanisation and industrialisation threaten the quality of soil and its long-term use, leading to the loss of its priority functions [2]. Excessive exploitation of soil by unsustainable agriculture inducing global-scale soil degradation is progressing at an alarming pace. Every year, around 10 million ha of arable land is considered to be unproductive [3], and the total growing area of degraded soils is now estimated at over 24% of the world’s soils [2]. The key challenge is, therefore, to increase or maintain crop yields without causing further degradation of the Earth’s ecosystems, in particular soils [4]. The challenge is further exacerbated by the growing demand for agricultural products for the rapidly growing human population in the world, predicted to reach 8.9 billion people in 2050 [5].
The problem of agricultural soil contamination with heavy metals calls for drastic and effective solutions [6]. Concentrations of these heavy metals surpassing the threshold values have negative effects on both the fertility of soils and on the growth, photosynthesis and productivity of crops, which in consequence, affects the health of humans and animals [7]. Apart from Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, Hg and As, the list of most toxic heavy metals includes cadmium and cobalt [8,9].
Contamination with cadmium has grown to be a major global problem as the allowable threshold amounts of this xenobiotic in crops are exceeded [10]. Worldwide, the average content of cadmium in the soil is in the range of 0.01–1 mg kg−1 d.m. of soil [11], while its average content in soil exposed to an excess concentration of this metal can be as high as 20–800 mg kg−1 d.m. of soil [12]. In 2020, cadmium was added to the list of CRM (Critical Raw Materials) candidates [13]. This heavy metal penetrates soils mainly from anthropogenic sources, such as smelting and refining copper and nickel, combustion of fossil fuels, application of phosphorus fertilisers [14] as well as from landfill leachate, agricultural land and mining waste, mostly from zinc and lead mines [15]. Nowadays, cadmium is needed for the manufacture of Ni-Cd batteries, pigments and PVC [16,17]. In turn, cobalt draws attention, having been classified by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registration (Atlanta, GA, USA) as the 52nd of 275 substances defined as priority ones [18]. A large share of the global cobalt production output is associated with the extraction of such raw materials as copper (55%) and nickel (35%). Arsenic extraction also plays a significant role in the production of this heavy metal [19,20]. With a wide range of technologically advanced applications of cobalt in catalysers, batteries, magnets or high-strength materials, the global production index of this metal is now the highest ever, at 140 kt (kilotons) a year [21]. The biggest producers of refined cobalt are China (67%), Finland (11%), and Canada (5%), where the market is dominated by the batteries industry, responsible for 58% of cobalt consumption [19,22].
Undoubtedly, problems caused by soil contamination with heavy metals can be minimised by using methods based on precipitation and ultrafiltration. However, these processes are expensive and ineffective at low concentrations of heavy metals. In turn, adsorption is distinguished by its high potential for elimination, recovery and recycling of heavy metals [23]. At present, research is gaining attention on high integrity minerals used as sorbents of heavy metals and on biochar manufactured from organic raw materials submitted to pyrolysis. Biosorbents change the soil’s pH and promote the sorption of this pool of heavy metals on their surface or induce encapsulation of heavy metals in their crystalline structure [24,25,26,27].
Remediation of soils polluted with heavy metals is imperative. Studies on heavy metals, including cadmium and cobalt, have revealed correlations between these metals and a higher incidence of lung cancer and gastric cancer [28] as well as neurological and metabolic disorders [29]. On the other hand, cobalt, as an active component of cobalamin (vitamin B12), participates in the catalysis of the regeneration of erythrocytes and is engaged in the proper functioning of the brain and nervous system [30]. Mechanisms involved in the activity of heavy metals are similar in biotas on all trophic levels because they predominantly act on the cellular level in highly conservative systems and are typically cytotoxic and genotoxic [31]. They mainly induce the peroxidation of lipids and changes in the cell membrane. They also bind thiol groups of proteins, leading to the loss of their functionality [32]. Metal cations inhibit transcription and replication of the DNA, as well as alter the DNA’s structure [33].
The fate of cadmium and cobalt, most often present in the soil solution as cations Cd2+ and Co2+, is moderated by precipitation, mineral dissolution, ion exchange, adsorption, desorption and the uptake by plants [34]. Both cadmium and cobalt retard the growth of plants. They are also responsible for oxidative stress and depressed uptake of essential nutrients, as well as a deficit of photosynthetic pigments and chlorosis of leaves [35,36]. However, hyperaccumulator plants are able to survive and grow in the presence of high levels of heavy metals and can accumulate up to 100 µg of metal g−1 of the plant [37]. Then, the absorption of metals is regulated by the response of molecular pathways. This process occurs both inter- and extracellularly on the symplastic and apoplastic routes, respectively [38].
Owing to the chemical dialogue based on interactions between plants and the microbiome of their roots, stimulated by metallophores and other chelating agents, plants are capable of responding to the stress induced by heavy metals. Metallophores, secondary metabolites of plants and bacteria, bind heavy metals, including cadmium, or else enhance their mobilisation, thereby stimulating phytoextraction [39,40]. Furthermore, metallothioneins, rich in cysteine with four Zn2+ or Cd2+ binding sites, are engaged in the detoxication and storage of heavy metals. Cadmium is a metal that induces the synthesis of metallothioneins [41]. Microorganisms transform heavy metals to less toxic forms by methylation or redox reactions, which alter the solubility of heavy metals in soil [1,40]. During the process of biosorption, metal cations attach to the negatively charged cell surfaces and release exopolysaccharides (EPS) from cells, which stimulate the non-specific binding of metals [42]. It is also worth underlining that the pollution of soil with heavy metals creates a selective pressure, promoting species of bacteria that are resistant to this pool of heavy metals [43]. Because studies on changes in the quality of soil induced by heavy metals must be based on properties that respond rapidly to changes in the environmental stress, the biological indicator most often recommended, other than the response of microbiomes, is the activity of soil enzymes [44,45]. Heavy metals may produce an inhibitory effect on soil enzymes by interacting with the active sites of enzymes, complexes of substrates and by denaturation of proteins of these enzymes [46].
Two facts, namely the sunflower (Helianthus annunus L.) showing high tolerance to heavy metals [47] and the use of a wide range of sorbents for remediation of soils [23], gave rise to the imperative to conduct comprehensive studies in order to determine and compare the sensitivity of microorganisms and soil enzymes to the pressure of cadmium and cobalt in soil cropped with sunflower and submitted to remediation with the application of a molecular sieve, halloysite, sepiolite, expanded clay and biochar.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil

The type of soil used in the experiment is common in the north-eastern part of Poland. According to the FAO taxonomy [48], it is a Eutric Cambisol. The soil in a controlled plant-growing experiment was taken from the arable humic horizon, from a depth of 0–20 cm, at the Experimental Station in Tomaszkowo (NE, Poland, 53.713° N, 20.432° E). It was then transported to the Teaching and Experimental Centre of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (NE, Poland, 53.759° N, 20.453° E). In terms of the grain-size composition, it was sandy loam, containing 60.63% of sand (fractions 0.05–2.0 mm), 35.99% of silt (fractions 0.05–0.002 mm) and 3.38% of clay (fraction < 0.002 mm). The basic properties of the soil are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Procedure for Setting Up and Conducting the Experiment

Pot trials were conducted in a greenhouse in polyethene pots with a capacity of 3.0 dm3. The yearly average air temperature in the months when the experiment was carried out (June–July) in NE Poland was 17.7 °C, and the average rainfall was ca 83.5 mm. The experiment was conducted in three series with three replicates. The first series was composed of non-polluted soil, and the second one was set up on non-polluted soil with the sorbents, i.e., a molecular sieve, halloysite, sepiolite, expanded clay, biochar and zeolite Bio.Zeo.S.01, the third series consisted of soils polluted with cadmium and cobalt and four series were composed of polluted soil with cadmium and cobalt treated with the sorbents, i.e., a molecular sieve, halloysite, sepiolite, expanded clay, biochar and zeolite Bio.Zeo.S.01. All sorbents were applied in doses of 10 g kg−1 d.m. of soil. The heavy metals were applied in amounts of 0 and 100 mg kg−1 d.m. of soil. Cadmium was applied as 3CdSO4·8H2O, and cobalt as CoSO4·7H2O. Prior to packing soil, previously sifted through a sieve (5 mm mesh) to polyethene pots, each batch was mixed thoroughly with the sorbents, heavy metals and fertilisers, according to the experiment’s design. The fertilisers N, P, K and Mg were applied in all series of the experiment once before sowing the crops. The soil was enriched with 110 mg N as CO(NH2)2, 45 mg P as KH2PO4, 110 mg K as KH2PO4 and KCl, and 20 mg Mg as MgSO4·7H2O. Afterwards, the soil moisture content was raised to 60% by adding distilled water. The test plant was the sunflower Helianthus annuus L. The emergence of Helianthus annuus L. took place 5 days after sowing. The earliest pathological symptoms (yellowing) in the pots with cobalt were observed after 12 days. The sunflower’s greenness index (SPAD) was determined at the stage of six leaves unfolded, that is, BBCH (Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt and Chemical Scale) 16, based on the content of chlorophyll determined with a MINOLTA SPAD 502Plus (KONICA MINOLTA, Langenhagen, Germany). The harvest of the sunflower’s aboveground parts and roots was performed at stage BBCH 35.

2.3. Characteristics of Sorbents

A molecular sieve (Grace Davison Company, Columbia, New York, NY, USA) is hydrated aluminosilicate with micropores of a diameter less than 0.3 nm. This is a product sold under the trade name Silosiv A3. It is a zeolite with a three-dimensional pore system with pHKCl—8.5. Halloysite (Halosorb minerals sorbents, Intermark, Gliwice, Poland) is a silicate mineral (kaolinite group). This mineral is classified as a representative of clay minerals, Al2Si2O5(OH4). It is the weathering product of the Tertiary basaltic rock. The pore diameter is 10–20 nm [62]. Sepiolite (Sepiolsa Minersa Group, Getxo, Spain) is a naturally occurring clay mineral (Mg4[Si6O15(OH)2]·6H2O). It has a fibrous texture with a pore diameter of 1.4 nm [63,64]. Biochar (Fluid, Sędziszów, Poland) is produced from organic waste, such as wood production waste in sawmills, energy willow and miscanthus. It possesses a well-developed internal network of pores with a diameter of 5 to 50 nm [65]. Expanded clay (GardenGURU, Piła, Poland) is a light aggregate of grains 1.6–8 mm in size. It is burnt from loamy clay at 1150–1200 °C. Zeolite Zeolit Bio.Zeo.S.01 (BioDrain, Rzeszów, Poland) is a aluminosilicate mineral (the silicates). More detailed specification of the sorbents can be found in our earlier papers [66,67,68,69].

2.4. Microbiological Analyses

The microbiological assays of soil were made in 4 replications. The following were determined in soil samples: counts of organotrophic bacteria (Org), actinomycetes (Act) and fungi (Fun). Amounts of 10 g of soil were weighed and placed in flasks with sterile saline (90 cm3 0.85% NaCl) and shaken on a laboratory shaker type 358A (Elpin, Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland) for 30 min at 120 revolutions per minute. Dilutions of 10−5 and 10−6 were prepared to determine the counts of organotrophic bacteria and actinobacteria. Bacteria were isolated in Bunt and Rovira medium [56], actinomycetes—on Kuster and Williams medium (1971) with added nystatin and actidione [57]. In order to determine counts of fungi, dilutions of 10−3 and 10−4 were prepared. Fungi were isolated on Martin medium [58]. In order to verify the correctness of the sterilisation of media and 0.85% of NaCl during microbiological analyses, verification tests were carried out. All Petri plates with cultures were placed in an incubator (PSelecta Incudigit, Barcelona, Spain) at a temperature of 28 °C. The number of colony-forming units (cfu) was determined with a colony counter. Sums of colonies of microorganisms were calculated from the formula ISO 7218:2007/AMD 1:2013 [70]. In order to compute the colony development (CD) and ecophysiological diversity (EP) indices, colony-forming units of microorganisms were counted every day for 10 days. The CD (Formula (1)) and EP (Formula (2)) indices were determined according to De Leij et al. [71]:
CD = [N1/1 + N2/2 + N3/3… N10/10] × 100
where: N1, N2, N3, …, N10 is the sum of the ratios of the number of microbial colonies identified on individual days (1, 2, 3, …, 10) to the total number of colonies identified over the entire study period.
EP = −Σ(pi × log10 pi)
where: pi is the ratio of the number of colonies of microorganisms identified on individual days to the total number of colonies identified over the entire study period.

2.5. Enzymatic Analyses

The biochemical analyses of soil included determination of the activity of dehydrogenases (Deh), catalase (Cat), acid phosphatase (Pac), alkaline phosphatase (Pal), β-glucosidase (Glu) and arylsulphatase (Aryl). All determinations were repeated 3 times. The analysis of the activity of dehydrogenases (EC 1.1) was carried out in line with Lenhard’s method modified by Öhlinger [59]. This method consists of the incubation of soil with water-soluble 2,3,5-triphenylthethrazole chloride (TTC), which is reduced to water-insoluble triphenylformazan (TPF). After 24 h soil incubation with calcium carbonate (in order to maintain conditions similar to natural ones), formazan is extracted from soil with ethyl alcohol. The results obtained in our study are expressed in µmol TPF kg−1 d.m. of soil h−1. The method applied to determine the activity of urease (EC 3.5.1.5) involves the incubation of soil for 24 h with 10% urea solution as a substrate. The number of ammonium ions produced was measured using the Nessler reagent. The results were expressed in mmol N-NH4 kg−1 d.m. of soil h−1. Determinations of the activity of urease, acid phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.2), alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.1), arylosulphatase (EC 3.1.6.1) and β-glucosidase (EC 3.2.1.21) were made according to the procedure developed by Alef et al. [60]. The determination of the activity of acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase consists of the incubation of soil in the presence of 4-nitrophenyl phosphate disodium salt 6-hydrate (PNPNa) as a substrate, which undergoes hydrolysis to 4-nitrophenol (PNP). The determination of the activity of arylsulphatase consists of the incubation of soil in the presence of potassium 4-nitrophenyl sulfate (PNS), β-glucosidase 4-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucopiranoside (PNG) as substrates. These substrates, same as in the case of phosphatases, hydrolyse to 4-nitrophenol (PNP). The activity of catalase (EC 1.11.1.6) was determined with the manganometric method according to Johnson and Temple [61]. This method consists of the decomposition of a solution of hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and oxygen. The soil oxidation state was determined based on the reaction of decomposition of hydrogen peroxide using 0.02 M of a solution of potassium permanganate (KMnO4). The results obtained from these analyses were presented in mol O2 kg−1 d.m. h−1. Determinations of the activity of all enzymes, except catalase, were made on a Perkin–Elmer Lambda 25 spectrophotometer (Waltham, MA, USA).

2.6. Physicochemical and Chemical Soil Analyses

Prior to the plant growing trials, the basic characteristics of the soil had been determined, and the results of these determinations are comprised in Table 1. The textural composition of the soil was determined with a laser molecular size meter Malvern Mastersizer 2000 Laser Diffraction (Malvern, Worcestershire, UK), while the hydrolytic acidity (HAC) and exchangeable base cations (EBC) of soil were measured according to the Kappen method [55]. Based on the HAC and EBC values, the cation exchange capacity (CEC) and base saturation (BS) were calculated. The content of total N (Ntot) was determined on a distillation unit Buchi B-324 (Buchi, Flawil, Switzerland), organic carbon (Corg)—on a spectrophotometer Genesis 6 (Thermo Electron Corporation, Waltham, MA, USA), available phosphorus—on a spectrophotometer SQ118, potassium—Jenway PFP 7 flame photometer (Jenway LTD, Staffordshire, UK), and magnesium—on an atomic absorption spectrophotometer GBC 932AA, (GBC Scientific Equipment Australia. Exchangeable cations: K+, Ca2+ and Na+, were determined using a flame photometer Jenway PFP 7 (Jenway LTD, Staffordshire, UK), and Mg2+—on an atomic absorption spectrophotometer Agilent 280 FS AA, (Agilent Technologies, Mulgrave, Australia). pH was measured with a HI 2221 pH meter (Hanna Instruments, Washington, UK). The content of cobalt in soil was determined on an ICI (International Electrotechnical Commission) spectrometer (Thermo Scientific; Waltham, MA, USA) according to standard ISO 11047:1998 [53].

2.7. Statistical Analyses

The results were processed statistically in a Statistica 13.0 software package [72]. Homogenous groups were distinguished with Tukey’s test at p = 0.05. The analysis of variance ANOVA was run to calculate the coefficient η2, which reflected the contribution of particular independent variables to the shaping of dependent variables. By using the determined activity of soil enzymes, an index was calculated to display the effect of the tested sorbents and heavy metals on the activity of soil enzymes and crop yields. The following formula was employed:
IFAd or IFHm = Po/Co − 1
where:
  • IFAd—index of the influence of the adsorbent.
  • IFHm—index of the influence of heavy metals.
  • Po—the activity of enzymes in the soil or the yield of plants after the use of sorbents/contaminated with heavy metals.
  • Co—enzyme activity or plant yield in unpolluted soil (no heavy metals) and without sorbents.
The calculated values of the indices IFAd and IFHm were presented with the help of software RStudio v1.2.5033 (Boston, MA, USA) [73], R v3.6.2 system (Vienna, Austria) [74] and the gplots library [75] on heat maps. The lowest values of the indices were shown in yellow colour, while the highest ones were in black. The blue line depicted in the colour key and histogram shows how many times each of the data appears in the matrix used in the heat map.

3. Results

3.1. Counts of Microorganisms

The percent contribution of independent variables (η2) determined in the study exposed the significant effect of heavy metals on the counts of fungi (50.62%) and organotrophic bacteria (53.26%) (Figure 1). The application of reactive minerals and biochar induced slightly smaller changes in the counts of microorganisms. The extent of the moderating influence of the adsorbents oscillated between 29.88% for organotrophic bacteria to 35.66% for fungi.
Among the six analysed sorbents, few proved to be effective in stimulating the activity of the groups of microorganisms (Tables S1–S3). In non-polluted soil, the molecular sieve and biochar had the best effect on the count of organotrophic bacteria (Table S1) and expanded clay was most beneficial for actinobacteria (Table S2), while fungi responded positively to both expanded clay and biochar (Table S3). The stimulating effect of the reactive minerals and biochar on organotrophic bacteria was 36% and 25%, respectively, compared to 39% in the case of actinobacteria and 53% and 57% with respect to fungi. In the pots contaminated with Cd2+ and Co2+, the positive effects of the sorbents were less spectacular, as demonstrated by the identified homogenous groups. Organotrophic bacteria were the most sensitive, while actinomycetes were the most tolerant to the heavy metals applied to the soil. In the latter group of microorganisms, the molecular sieve and biochar achieved the expected role by mollifying the inhibitory impact of Cd2+. Both materials induced an increase in the counts of actinomycetes by 84% and 60%, respectively, compared to the control pots polluted with this heavy metal. In turn, under the pressure of Co2+, expanded clay showed a particular remedial ability, contributing to an increase in the count of fungi by as much as 77%.
Values of the colony development (CD) indices obtained for the analysed groups of microorganisms revealed the inhibitory effect of both Cd2+ and Co2+ on this parameter (Figure 2). Although sepiolite stimulated the multiplication of organotrophic bacteria, it was ineffective in alleviating the negative influence of the heavy metals applied to the soil, in which it resembled the other tested sorbents.
A reverse dependence was noted in the case of actinomycetes. None of the sorbents stimulated the multiplication of this group of microorganisms in soil free from heavy metals. On the other hand, the complication of the exposure to Cd2+ and soil remediation with expanded clay or soil contamination with Co2+ and the application of a molecular sieve contributed to a rise in the CD value for actinomycetes. In the pots unpolluted with heavy metals, expanded clay also induced the multiplication of fungi (CD = 78.329). None of the sorbents managed to alleviate the negative effects of such spectacular pressure by Cd2+ and Co2+. It is worth underlining that the broader pool of applied reactive minerals, including a molecular sieve, expanded clay and zeolite as well as biochar was more effective in constraining the inhibitory impact of Co2+ than that of Cd2+ on the multiplication rate of fungi.
The response of microorganisms to the tested factors was also traced through the prism of the ecophysiological diversity (EP) values (Figure 3). In the pots free from contamination with the heavy metals, none of the tested sorbents had a positive effect on the EP of organotrophic bacteria comparable to that obtained with the molecular sieve in soil exposed to 100 mg Cd2+ kg−1 d.m. of soil (EP = 0.945). In turn, the pressure of 100 mg Co2+ kg−1 d.m. of soil on this parameter was mollified by halloysite, expanded clay, zeolite and biochar. It is worth emphasising that the response of actinomycetes to the compilation of soil contamination with Co2+ and its remediation with a molecular sieve was completely opposite. The ecophysiological diversity index in this pool of objects was observed to have decreased. Among fungi, which were characterised by the lowest EP values, a comparable trend was observed in the objects with sepiolite in the soil polluted with Cd2+ and Co2+.

3.2. Enzyme Activity

The differentiated response of soil enzymes, demonstrated by the η 2 values was another manifestation of the extent of biotic stress induced by soil contamination with Cd2+ and Co2+ (Figure 1). Having assessed the percentage contribution of the variables, the response of enzymes to the applied adsorbents was evaluated and arranged in the following order: Glu > Cat > Pac > Deh > Aryl = Ure > Pal. The heavy metals had the highest moderating effect on Pal (91%), Deh (86%) and Ure (84%), and the weakest one—on the activity of Glu (17%). Co2+ proved to be less toxic to Deh and Ure (Tables S4 and S6), and Cd2+ was less toxic to Pal (Table S7). The activity of enzymes declined by 94% (Deh) and 48% (Ure) under the pressure of Co2+ and by 58% (Pal) under the influence of Cd2+ relative to the control objects. With respect to the remaining enzymes, the inhibitory effect of both heavy metals was similar (Tables S5 and S8–S10). The index of the effect of heavy metals on the activity of soil enzymes (IFHm) attested to the particular sensitivity of Deh, Pal and Ure to being exposed to Cd2+ and Co2+ (Figure 4). Values of the IFHm also distinguished the most stable enzymes in soil exposed to the pressure of the heavy metals, which were β-glucosidase and catalase.
Based on the values of the index showing the effect of sorbents on the activity of enzymes (IFAd), the sorbents which improved the condition of the soil were identified (Figure 5). However, none of the adsorbents applied restored the equilibrium of the soil after it had been polluted with heavy metals. Zeolite in unpolluted soil stimulated the activity of Deh, Ure, Aryl and Pal, inducing its increase by 56%, 24%, 18% and 17%, respectively, in comparison to the control objects. Sepiolite and halloysite raised the activity of Pac and Glu by 38%, whereas biochar contributed to a rise in the activity of catalase by 12%. When reviewing the remediation potential of the tested adsorbents, it was concluded that all the reactive minerals and biochar only alleviated the inhibitory impact of the heavy metals, except expanded clay added to the soil exposed to the pressure of Cd2+, but did not completely eliminate the impact of heavy metals. The extent of their influence varied. Regardless of the metal applied to soil, the molecular sieve and biochar decreased the toxic effect of Cd2+ and Co2+ on the activity of dehydrogenases. However, the highest value of IFAd = 8.048 was obtained in the soil polluted with Co2+ and amended with zeolite. Halloysite caused an increase in the activity of urease. The activity of this enzyme in the objects with Co2+ contaminated soil was also stimulated by zeolite and sepiolite. Higher effectiveness of these three sorbents was also noted regarding catalase, but only in the soil contaminated with Cd2+. In this pool of objects, the molecular sieve proved to be the remediation factor that mostly enhanced the activity of Pac and Pal. The adsorbents which were ineffective in stimulating the activity of particular soil enzymes were also identified. The objects polluted with Co2+ halloysite did not significantly stimulate the activity of Ure, Pal and Aryl, sepiolite—Cat and Glu, expanded clay—Deh, and biochar—Pac. In the soil contaminated with Cd2+, the expected effects were not achieved by expanded clay as regards Pal and Glu, and zeolite as regards Pac and Arul. Sepiolite, biochar and molecular sieve generated the lowest values of the IFAd for Deh (IFAd = 0.15), Cat (IFAd = 0.10) and Ure (IFAd = 0.11), respectively.
A more comprehensive character of this study was achieved when the response of the sunflower to the pressure of Cd2+ and Co2+ was analysed, and the usefulness of the tested adsorbents in remediation of soils polluted with heavy metals was verified, including the yields of the test plant (Tables S11 and S12, Figure 6). Co2+ had a stronger inhibitory effect on the growth and development of the sunflower’s aboveground parts, whose yields were lower by as much as 73% under the pressure of this metal relative to the control, in comparison to a 59% lower yield in soil polluted with Cd2+ (Table S11). Out of the six adsorbents applied to the soil not exposed to heavy metals, biochar and zeolite induced an increase in the crop’s aboveground parts by 18% and 15%, respectively, relative to the control. Notwithstanding this, both adsorbents mitigated the least the toxic effect of Cd2+ on this parameter. The values of the index illustrating the impact of the heavy metals on the sunflower yields (IFHm) revealed that the extent of the negative influence of both Cd2+ (IFHm = −0.32) and Co2+ (IFHm = −0.52) was the smallest in the compilation with the molecular sieve (Figure 7a). Determination of the usefulness of adsorbents based on the IFAd exposed their potential to alleviate the toxic effect of the heavy metals on the yield of the cultivated crop (Figure 8a). However, this potential was varied and dependent on the type of heavy metal. The lowest value of the IFAd in soil exposed to the pressure of Cd2+ was noted for zeolite (IFAd = 0.10) and to Co2+—for sepiolite and expanded clay (IFAd = 0.18).
When evaluating the response of sunflowers through the prism of the mass of sunflower roots, different relationships emerged (Table S12). Cd2+ proved to be a stronger inhibitor to the crop’s root system. The application of this heavy metal generated the root mass lower by 77%, compared to 70% in response to Co2+, relative to the unpolluted objects. The usefulness of the adsorbents for remediation of soil was traced following the response of the sunflower roots, which displayed two significant relationships: halloysite induced an increase in the root biomass by 44% and zeolite by 38% in unpolluted soil (1) and according to the IFHm values, none of these adsorbents was as effective in the alleviation of the negative impact of the heavy metals (2) (Figure 6). The pool of the objects contaminated with Cd2+, sepiolite, expanded clay, and molecular sieve generated the lowest values of the IFHm = −0.63, and the molecular sieve was the most effective in alleviating the toxic effect of cobalt in Co2+ contaminated soil (IFHm = −0.571). Having traced the values of the index showing the effect of sorbents (IFAd) on the development of the sunflower’s root system, we were able to identify the reactive minerals that played the least significant role in the simulation of the root’s growth (Figure 7b). These include expanded clay in unpolluted soil (IFAd = 0.09) and in soil exposed to Co2+ (IFAd = 0.11), as well as halloysite in the objects contaminated with Cd2+ (IFAd = 0.18). Co2+ disturbed the synthesis of chlorophyll spectacularly, as evidenced by the low values of the greenness index (4.45) (Table 2). However, this process was significantly mollified by the molecular sieve, same as in the objects polluted with Cd2+, although the inhibitory effect of this metal (SPAD = 21.62) was not as large as the one produced by Co2+.

4. Discussion

4.1. Microorganisms

Contamination of soil with Co2+ or with Cd2+ caused undesirable changes in the soil’s microbiological parameters. They included depressed counts of organotrophic bacteria and, to a lesser extent, of fungi and actinomycetes. Admittedly, negative effects of the impact of these heavy metals on the soil microbiome were expected, as suggested by reports on the damage of the integrity of the cell membrane in microorganisms, inactivation or oxidation of cellular enzymes, protein denaturation, or inhibition of the process of transcription by heavy metals [76]. However, it is known that one of the common adaptation strategies of microorganisms relies on the extracellular production of metallophores and polysaccharides [77] and on horizontal gene transfer, where mobile genetic elements, such as transposons and integrons, play an important role [78]. Co2+ proved to be a stronger inhibitor of the multiplication of actinomycetes and fungi than Cd2+. Considering the fact that Co2+ is absorbed by microorganisms in order to produce enzyme cofactors (cobamide) participating in the metabolic reactions essential for live cells [79], it shows affinity to thiol groups of peroxiredoxins aggregated after hyperoxidation to protect proteins from denaturation [80], opposite tendencies were expected. Kosiorek and Wyszkowski [81] also report that Co2+ may retard or stimulate the division of cells depending on its dose. However, the correlations obtained in this study correspond well to the research results achieved by Wyszkowska et al. [44], Boros-Lajszner et al. [82] and Zaborowska et al. [83]. It has been demonstrated that the toxicity of Co2+ in the periplasm regulated by the cytochromes GSU1538 and GSU2513 is associated with the diffusion of this metal through non-selective pores of the external membrane, leading to the rapid accumulation of Co2+ in the periplasm space, thereby interfering with basic cellular functions [84]. The toxicity of Cd2+ towards microorganisms raises fewer questions as it has been confirmed by numerous scientific reports [44,82,85,86]. Furthermore, Gunina and Kuzyakow [87] observed that Cd2+ pressure caused a rapid rate of the uptake of sugars from the soil by microorganisms, which stimulated microbial activity and accelerated the decomposition of SOM. The depressed availability of organic matter could evoke a strong stress response in microorganisms. Thus, the application of adsorbents as a remediation factor is highly justified, particularly the use of a molecular sieve and biochar, which not only induced the growth of organotrophic bacteria but also mollified the toxic effect of Cd2+. In addition, the molecular sieve enhanced the rate of multiplication of actinomycetes and had a beneficial influence on the ecophysiological diversity of organotrophic bacteria. The effectiveness of biochar was most probably connected with its unique parameters responsible for the adsorption potential of heavy metals in arable soils, such as surface loads and pore spaces correlated with the content of nutrients and the ability to exchange cations (CEC) [88,89]. In their studies, Strachel et al. [66] and Steiner et al. [90] also demonstrated that biochar enhanced the activity of the soil microbiome. A molecular sieve owes its effectiveness to silanol groups (Si-OH) localised on the surface of the mineral, which can strongly immobilise Cd2+ in soil [91]. Strachel et al. [66] showed that a molecular sieve, same as biochar, had the strongest positive effect on the counts of organotrophic bacteria and actinomycetes, which supports the results of our experiment. The effect produced by expanded clay should not be neglected either, as it alleviated the negative impact of Co2+ on counts of all analysed groups of microorganisms and contributed to a more intensive proliferation of both fungi and actinomycetes. The usefulness of expanded clay as a bioremediation substance arises from the double porosity of this mineral, both the porous core and the intercrystallite space [92]. Expanded clay is increasingly often used as a material for amending wetlands owing to its ability to remove phosphates and its structure that supports the activity of the microbiome [93].

4.2. Soil Enzymes

Being able to conduct a reliable analysis of the potential of microorganisms in soil transformations requires adequate quantification of the activity of soil enzymes [94]. Priority is given to soil ecosystems with distorted homeostasis. The response of the analysed soil enzymes exposed the negative effect of Co2+ and Cd2+ on the condition of the soil. Among the seven analysed soil enzymes, dehydrogenases, urease, acid, and alkaline phosphatase appeared to be particularly sensitive to the pressure of both heavy metals. Different responses of the broad pool of enzymes to the two heavy metals reflected the complexity of the forms in which these enzymes occur in soil. Extracellular enzymes are released from cells of microorganisms undergoing lysis. They are also associated with enzyme-substrate complexes or are complex with organic matter through the process of adsorption or copolymerisation. Some enzymes also bind to condensed tannins or are adsorbed on clay materials [95]. The highest sensitivity of dehydrogenases to the toxicity of Co2+ and Cd2+ could be attributed to the fact that these enzymes are the basic elements of the enzymatic system of all living microorganisms [96]. It is also known that one of the key abiotic environmental factors moderating the activity of all enzymes is the soil pH [97]. A rise in this parameter can contribute to the damage of ionic and hydrogen bonds in the active centre of dehydrogenases [98]. In turn, the negative effect of Co2+ on the activity of urease could be a consequence of interactions of complexes containing this metal with sulfhydryl groups of cysteines, histidine nitrogen atoms or oxygen atoms of glutamic acid residues of urease amino acids [99].
While the application of adsorbents did not restore the equilibrium of soil, some of these substances stood out by their ability to alleviate the toxic effect of heavy metals. Apart from a molecular sieve and biochar, which determined the activity of Deh, other reactive minerals were distinguished as being able to minimise the adverse impact of Co2+ on the activity of Deh and Cat (zeolite) or Ure (halloysite, sepiolite and zeolite), and were also effective against the negative influence of Cd2+ in soil. The effectiveness of a molecular sieve and zeolite might be attributed to the homogenous structure of these sorbents [100] and heavy metal binding affinity [101]. Of importance for the bioremediation potential is the three-dimensional skeleton of tetrahedral bonds [SiO4]4− and [AlO4]5− of zeolite studded with spaces for cation exchange, which creates the catalytic characteristics of this material and facilitates the process of adsorption, desorption and ionic exchange [102]. Boros-Lajszner et al. [69] also implicate an important role of zeolite in the remediation of soil contaminated with heavy metals. In turn, Strachel et al. [66] maintain that halloysite is a significant stimulator of Pac, Deh and Ure. Yuan et al. [103] claim that this clay mineral is effective in absorbing pollutants by creating surface complexes, which resemble sepiolite, which causes changes in the activity of alkaline phosphatase, β-glucosidase [66], urease [104] and dehydrogenase [105].

4.3. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) against Soil Contamination with Co2+ and Cd2+

The choice of the sunflower (Helianthus annuus) as a test plant was dictated by its ability to remove heavy metals from soils [106,107]. It was demonstrated that both Co2+ and Cd2+ significantly disturbed the yielding of the test plant. Similar relationships were noted by Forte and Mutiti in soil polluted by Cd2+ [106]. Under the pressure of 200 mg Cd2+ kg−1 d.m. of soil, the dry matter of the stem decreased by 64.30%, and that of the root was lowered by 80.80%. Higher toxicity of Co2+ towards the sunflower is certainly a consequence of the heavy metal interfering with the structure and number of chloroplasts, damage to the morphology of plastids and inhibition of the synthesis of the RNA as well as amounts of the RNA and DNA through the modification of the activity of endo- and exonucleases [108]. In turn, Cd2+ depresses the activity of the oxidative enzymes CAT or SOD [36]. Stimulation of ROS in a plant induces an increase in the synthesis of the mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase [109], and the Cd2+ stimulated synthesis of the radicals H2O2 and OH eventually leads to the necrosis of plant tissues [110]. Due to the competition with Cd2+, the uptake and, consequently, concentrations of K, Ca, Mn, Zn, Cu and Fe in plants decrease, causing their deficiencies [111]. This study proves that the response of the sunflower to the contamination of soil with heavy metals, including Co2+, is manifested by the yellowing of leaves correlated with the decreasing content of chlorophyll, as evidenced by the SPAD values. According to Palit et al. [108], the role of this metal in the process of photosynthesis is controversial. However, the toxic effect of Co2+ on this parameter is manifested by the inhibition of the acceptor PS2, thereby slowing down the Hill reaction and by the reduced export of photo assimilators. Furthermore, Cd2+ has an inhibitory effect on photosynthesis by retarding the activity of the Calvin cycle enzymes. In addition, it induces changes in the lipid composition of thylakoid membranes [112].
The molecular sieve manifested its remediation properties in the soil contaminated with Co2+ and Cd2+. Interestingly, biochar and zeolite significantly induced the growth and development of the sunflower in unpolluted soil. However, the compilation of these sorbents did not yield the expected results, which would be a higher yield of this crop. This could be explained by the fact that biochar produced by pyrolysis may contain small amounts of toxic substances, usually As, Cr, Pb and Cd. Hence, before its application as a biosorbent, it is recommended to leach metals from biochar [113].

5. Conclusions

Co2+ and Cd2+ significantly interfered with the soil’s microbiome, distorting its balance. Organotrophic bacteria proved to be the least sensitive to soil contamination with Cd2+, while fungi and actinomycetes were least sensitive to the pollution of soil with Co2+. The inhibitory effect of Cd2+ was also manifested by the decreasing CD values of actinomycetes and organotrophic bacteria, thereby implicating a change in the structure of these groups of microorganisms from r strategists to K strategists. Dehydrogenases and urease were most sensitive to the pressure of Cd2+, while dehydrogenases and alkaline phosphatase—to Co2+. The response of Helianthus annuus to soil pollution with heavy metals consisted in the significantly disturbed growth and development of this plant, both the aboveground parts and the roots, although Co2+ inhibited the synthesis of chlorophyll more spectacularly. None of the tested adsorbents restored the balance of soil after the contamination with the heavy metals, although all of them, to a different extent, alleviated the toxic influence of the metals on the soil’s microbiological activity and biochemical activity and yields of the sunflower. A molecular sieve and biochar demonstrated remediation potential towards microorganisms and enzymatic activity. The activity of soil enzymes was also stimulated by zeolite and sepiolite. The use of a molecular sieve induced an increase in the biomass of Helianthus annuus of both aboveground organs and roots. Having analysed all the parameters included in this experiment, it was concluded that a molecular sieve might be the most useful sorbent in the remediation of soils polluted with Co2+ and Cd2+. The obtained results set the direction for further research, which should be carried out under environmental conditions. The use of sorbents in the reclamation of Cd2+ and Co2+ contaminated soils should also be preceded by an economic calculation in connection with the impact of these pollutants on the environment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ma15165738/s1, Table S1: The number of organotrophic bacteria, 109 cfu kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S2: The number of actinomycetes, 109 cfu kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S3: The number of fungi, 107 cfu kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S4: Dehydrogenases activity, µmol TPF h−1 kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S5: Catalase activity, mol O2 h−1 kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S6: Urease activity, mmol N-NH4 h−1 kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S7: Alkaline phosphatase activity, mmol PNP kg−1 h−1 kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S8: Acid phosphatase activity, mmol PNP h−1 kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S9: Arylsulfatase activity, mmol PNS h−1 kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S10: β-glucosidase activity, mmol PNG h−1 kg−1 d.m. of soil; Table S11: Yield of aboveground parts of sunflower (Helianthus annuus), g d.m. on pot−1; Table S12: Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) root yield, g d.m. pot−1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and experimental design and methodology, J.W., A.B., M.Z. and J.K.; investigation, J.W. and A.B.; statistical analyses, J.W., A.B. and M.Z.; writing—review and editing, J.W., A.B. and M.Z.; supervision, J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Soil Science and Microbiology (grant No. 30.610.006-110) and project financially supported by Minister of Education and Science in the range of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, Project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding 12.000.000 PLN.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available by contacting the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite. Cd—ion Cd2+, Co—ion Co2+, SPAD—the leaf greenness index; Org—organotrophic bacteria; Act—actinomycetes; Fun—fungi; Deh—dehydrogenases; Cat—catalase; Ure—urease; Pac—acid phosphatase; Pal—alkaline phosphatase; Aryl—arylsulfatase, Glu—β-glucosidase; CD—colony development index; EP—ecophysiological diversity index.

References

  1. Barra Caracciolo, A.; Terenzi, V. Rhizosphere microbial communities and heavy metal. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Karlen, D.L.; Rice, C.W. Soil degradation: Will humankind ever learn? Sustainability 2015, 7, 12490–12501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hossain, A.; Krupnik, T.J.; Timsina, J.; Mahboob, M.G.; Chaki, A.K.; Farooq, M. Agricultural land degradation: Processes and problems undermining future food security. In Environment, Climate, Plant and Vegetation Growth; Fahad, S., Hasanuzzaman, M., Alam, M., Ullah, H., Saeed, M., Ali Khan, I., Adnan, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2020; pp. 17–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W.; Wang, P.; McKenna, B.A.; Lombi, E. Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lichtfouse, E.; Navarrete, M.; Debaeke, P.; Souchere, V.; Alberola, C.; Menassieu, J. Agronomy for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Genchi, G.; Sinicropi, M.S.; Lauria, G.; Carocci, A.; Catalano, A. The effects of cadmium toxicity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Awan, S.A.; Ilyas, N.; Khan, I.; Raza, M.A.; Rehman, A.U.; Rizwan, M.; Rastogi, A.; Tariq, R.; Brestic, M. Bacillus siamensis reduces cadmium accumulation and improves growth and antioxidant defense system in two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. Plants (Basel, Switz.). Plants 2020, 9, 878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Ilahi, I. Environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology of hazardous heavy metals: Environmental persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. J. Chem. 2019, 2019, 6730305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xu, J.; Hu, C.; Wang, M.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, X.; Cao, L.; Lu, Y.; Cai, X. Changeable effects of coexisting heavy metals on transfer of cadmium from soils to wheat grains. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 423, 127182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kusvuran, S.; Kiran, S.; Ellialtioglu, S.S. Antioxidant enzyme activities and abiotic stress tolerance relationship in vegetable crops. In Abiotic and Biotic Stress in Plants—Recent Advances and Future Perspectives, 1st ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 481–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mashhadikhan, S.; Amooghin, A.E.; Sanaeepur, H.; Shirazi, M.M.A. A critical review on cadmium recovery from wastewater towards environmental sustainability. Desalination 2022, 535, 115815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rigby, H.; Smith, S.R. The significance of cadmium entering the human food chain via livestock ingestion from the agricultural use of biosolids, with special reference to the UK. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. European Commission. Study on the Review of the List of Critical Raw Materials-Final Report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; p. 158. ISBN1 978-92-79-72119-9. Available online: http://hytechcycling.eu/wp-content/uploads/Study-on-the-review-of-the-list-of-Critical-Raw-Materials.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2022)ISBN2 978-92-79-72119-9.
  14. Casado, M.; Anawar, H.M.; Garcia-Sanchez, A.; Santa Regina, I. Cadmium and zinc in polluted mining soils and uptake by plants (El Losar mine, Spain). Int. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 33, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Thompson, J.; Bannigan, J. Cadmium: Toxic effects on the reproductive system and the embryo. Reproduct. Toxicol. 2008, 25, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hayat, M.T.; Nauman, M.; Nazir, N.; Ali, S.; Bangash, N. Environmental hazards of cadmium: Past, present, and future. In Cadmium Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 163–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Genchi, G.; Carocci, A.; Lauria, G.; Sinicropi, M.S.; Catalano, A. Nickel: Human health and environmental toxicology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. ATSDR. Substance Priority List (SPL); Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017; p. 2019.
  19. Dehaine, Q.; Tijsseling, L.T.; Glass, H.J.; Törmänen, T.; Butcher, A.R. Geometallurgy of cobalt ores: A review. Miner. Eng. 2021, 160, 106656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Johnson, D.B.; Dybowska, A.; Schofield, P.F.; Herrington, R.J.; Smith, S.L.; Santos, A.L. Bioleaching of arsenic-rich cobalt mineral resources, and evidence for concurrent biomineralisation of scorodite during oxidative bio-processing of skutterudite. Hydrometallurgy 2020, 195, 105395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. USGS. Mineral Commodity Summaries—Cobalt. Reston, Virginia. 2020. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2020 (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  22. Darton Commodities Ltd. Cobalt Market Review 2019–2020. Guildford. 2020. Available online: https://www.dartoncommodities.co.uk/cobalt/ (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  23. Gil, A.; Santamaría, L.; Korili, S.A.; Vicente, M.A.; Barbosa, L.V.; de Souza, S.D.; Marçal, L.; de Faria, E.H.; Ciuffi, K.J. A review of organic-inorganic hybrid clay based adsorbents for contaminants removal: Synthesis, perspectives and applications. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Oustriere, N.; Marchand, L.; Lottier, N.; Motelica, M.; Mench, M. Long-term Cu stabilization and biomass yields of Giant reed and poplar after adding a biochar, alone or with iron grit, into a contaminated soil from a wood preservation site. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Park, J.H.; Lamb, D.; Paneerselvam, P.; Choppala, G.; Bolan, N.; Chung, J.W. Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal (loid) contaminated soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 549–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cao, F.; Lian, C.; Yu, J.; Yang, H.; Lin, S. Study on the adsorption performance and competitive mechanism for heavy metal contaminants removal using novel multipore activated carbons derived from recyclable long-root Eichhornia crassipes. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 276, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Belviso, C.; Cavalcante, F.; Ragone, P.; Fiore, S. Immobilization of Zn and Pb in polluted soil by in-situ crystallization zeolites from fly ash. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 5357–5364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Okoye, E.A.; Bocca, B.; Ruggieri, F.; Ezejiofor, A.N.; Nwaogazie, I.L.; Domingo, J.L.; Rovira, J.; Frazzoli, C.; Orisakwe, O.E. Metal pollution of soil, plants, feed and food in the Niger Delta, Nigeria: Health risk assessment through meat and fish consumption. Environ. Res. 2021, 198, 111273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fu, Z.S.; Xi, S.H. The effects of heavy metals on human metabolism. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2020, 30, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Huang, H.; Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Cai, J.; Pi, J.; Xu, J.F. Inspirations of cobalt oxide nanoparticle based anticancer therapeutics. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Manoj, S.R.; Karthik, C.; Kadirvelu, K.; Arulselvi, P.I.; Shanmugasundaram, T.; Bruno, B.; Rajkumar, M. Understanding the molecular mechanisms for the enhanced phytoremediation of heavy metals through plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 254, 109779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Amari, T.; Ghnaya, T.; Abdelly, C. Nickel, cadmium and lead phytotoxicity and potential of halophytic plants in heavy metal extraction. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2017, 111, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Igiri, B.E.; Okoduwa, S.I.R.; Idoko, G.O.; Akabuogo, E.P.; Adeyi, A.O.; Ejiogu, I.K. Toxicity and bioremediation of heavy metals contaminated ecosystem from tannery wastewater: A review. J. Toxicol. 2018, 2018, 2568038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Levy, D.B.; Barbarick, K.A.; Siemer, E.G.; Sommers, L.E. Distribution and partitioning of trace metals in contaminated soils near Leadville, Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 1992, 21, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hussain, A.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Rehman, M.Z.; Qayyum, M.F.; Nawaz, R.; Ahmad, A.; Asrar, M.; Ahmad, S.R.; Alsahli, A.A. Combined use of different nanoparticles effectively decreased cadmium (Cd) concentration in grains of wheat grown in a field contaminated with Cd. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 215, 112139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Qianqian, M.; Haider, F.U.; Farooq, M.; Adeel, M.; Shakoor, N.; Jun, W.; Jiaying, X.; Wang, X.W.; Panjun, L.; Liqun, C. Selenium treated Foliage and biochar treated soil for improved lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) growth in Cd-polluted soil. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 335, 130267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ojuederie, O.B.; Babalola, O.O. Microbial and plant-assisted bioremediation of heavy metal polluted environments: A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Haider, F.U.; Liqun, C.; Coulter, J.A.; Cheema, S.A.; Wu, J.; Zhang, R.; Wenjun, M.; Farooq, M. Cadmium toxicity in plants: Impacts and remediation strategies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 211, 111887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Grobelak, A.; Hiller, J. Bacterial siderophores promote plant growth: Screening of catechol and hydroxamate siderophores. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Chatterjee, S.; Kumari, S.; Rath, S.; Priyadarshanee, M.; Das, S. Diversity, structure and regulation of microbial metallothionein: Metal resistance and possible applications in sequestration of toxic metals. Matallomics 2020, 12, 1637–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Rono, J.K.; Le Wang, L.; Wu, X.C.; Cao, W.H.; Zhao, Y.N.; Khan, I.U.; Yang, Z.M. Identification of a new function of metallothioneinlike gene OsMT1e for cadmium detoxification and potential phytoremediation. Chemosphere 2021, 265, 129136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Balan, B.; Dhaulaniya, A.S.; Varma, D.A. Microbial biofilm ecology, in silico study of quorum sensing receptor-ligand interactions and biofilm mediated bioremediation. Arch. Microbiol. 2021, 203, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barra Caracciolo, A.; Grenni, P.; Garbini, G.L.; Rolando, L.; Campanale, C.; Aimola, G.; Fernandez-Lopez, M.; Fernandez-Gonzalez, A.J.; Villadas, P.J.; Ancona, V. Characterization of the belowground microbial community in a poplar-phytoremediation strategy of a multi-contaminated soil. Front. Microb. 2020, 11, 2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wyszkowska, J.; Boros-Lajszner, E.; Kucharski, J. Calorific value of Festuca rubra biomass in the phytostabilization of soil contaminated with nickel, cobalt and cadmium which disrupt the microbiological and biochemical properties of soil. Energies 2022, 15, 3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Borowik, A.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Microbiological study in petrol-spiked soil. Molecules 2021, 26, 2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yang, Y.; Dong, M.; Cao, Y.; Wang, J.; Tang, M.; Ban, Y. Comparisons of soil properties, enzyme activities and microbial communities in heavy metal contaminated bulk and rhizosphere soils of Robinia pseudoacacia L. in the Northern foot of Qinling Mountain. Forests 2017, 8, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Govarthanana, M.; Mythilib, R.; Selvankumarb, T.; Kamala-Kannanc, S.; Kima, H. Myco-phytoremediation of arsenic- and lead-contaminated soils by Helianthus annuus and wood rot fungi, Trichoderma sp. isolated from decayed wood. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 151, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. FAO. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006; World Soil Research Report No.103; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  49. ISO 11261; Soil Quality—Determination of Total Nitrogen—Modified Kjeldahl Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.
  50. Nelson, D.; Sommers, L. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Method of Soil Analysis: Chemical Methods; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 1201–1229. [Google Scholar]
  51. Egner, H.; Riehm, H.; Domingo, W. Untersuchungen Über Die Chemische Bodenanalyse Als Grundlage Für Die Beurteilung Des Nährstoffzustandes Der böden. II. Chemische extractionsmethoden zur phospor- und kaliumbestimmung. Ann. Royal Agricult. Coll. Swed. 1960, 26, 199–215. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schlichting, E.; Blume, H.; Stahr, K. Bodenkundliches praktikum. Pareys studientexte 81; Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  53. ISO 11047:1998; Soil quality—Determination of cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc—Flame and electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometric methods. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998.
  54. ISO 10390; In Soil Quality—Determination of pH. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  55. Klute, A. Methods of Soil Analysis; American Society of Agronomy, Agronomy Monograph 9: Madison, WI, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bunt, J.S.; Rovira, A.D. Microbiological studies of some subantarctic soils. J. Soil Sci. 1955, 6, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Parkinson, D.; Gray, T.R.G.; Williams, S.T. Methods for Studying the Ecology of Soil Microorganisms; IBP Handbook 19; Blackwell Scientific Publication: Oxford, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  58. Martin, J. Use of acid rose bengal and streptomycin in the plate method for estimating soil fungi. Soil Sci. 1950, 69, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Öhlinger, R. Dehydrogenase activity with the substrate TTC. In Methods in Soil Biology; Schinner, F., Ohlinger, R., Kandler, E., Margesin, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996; pp. 241–243. [Google Scholar]
  60. Johnson, J.L.; Temple, K.L. Some variables affecting the measurement of “catalase activity” in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1964, 28, 207–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Alef, K.; Nannipieri, P. (Eds.) Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry; Academic London: London, UK, 1988; pp. 316–365. [Google Scholar]
  62. Keeling, J.L. The Mineralogy, Geology and Occurrences of Halloysite; Apple Academic Press: Oakville, ON, Canada, 2015; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272481304_The_mineralogy_geology_and_occurrences_of_halloysite (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  63. Sun, Y.; Sun, G.; Xu, Y.; Liu, W.; Liang, X.; Wang, L. Evaluation of the effectiveness of sepiolite, bentonite, and phosphate amendments on the stabilization remediation of cadmium contaminated soils. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 166, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hamid, Y.; Tang, L.; Hussain, B.; Usman, M.; Liu, L.; Ulhassan, Z.; He, Z.; Yang, X. Sepiolite clay: A review of its applications to immobilize toxic metals in contaminated soils and its implications in soil–plant system. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 23, 101598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ayaz, M.; Feizienė, D.; Tilvikienė, V.; Akhtar, K.; Stulpinaitė, U.; Iqbal, R. Biochar role in the sustainability of agriculture and environment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Strachel, R.; Wyszkowska, J.; Baćmaga, M. An evaluation of the effectiveness of sorbents in the remediation of soil contaminated with zinc. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2018, 229, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Use of zeolite to neutralise nickel in a soil environment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Borowik, A.; Wyszkowska, J. Remediation of soil contaminated with diesel oil. J. Elem. 2018, 23, 767–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Use of a zeolite and molecular sieve to restore homeostasis of soil contaminated with cobalt. Minerals 2020, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. ISO 7218:2007/AMD 1:2013; Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—General requirements and guidance for microbiological examina-tions—Amendment 1. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  71. De Leji, F.A.M.; Whipps, M.; Lynch, J.M. The use for colony development for the characterization of bacterial communities in soil and on roots. Microb. Ecol. 1993, 27, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Statistica (Data Analysis Software System). version 13; Tibco Softwere Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017; Available online: http://statistica.io (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  73. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R; RStudio, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2019; Available online: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  74. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  75. Warnes, G.R.; Bolker, B.; Bonebakker, L.; Gentleman, R.; Huber, W.; Liaw, A.; Lumley, T.; Maechler, M.; Magnusson, M.; Moeller, S.; et al. Various R Programming Tools for Plotting Data. R Package Version 2.17.0. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gplots (accessed on 23 February 2020).
  76. Fashola, M.O.; Ngole-Jeme, V.M.; Babalola, O.O. Heavy metal pollution from gold mines: Environmental effects and bacterial strategies for resistance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mathivanan, K.; Chandirika, J.U.; Vinothkanna, A.; Yin, H.; Liu, X.; Meng, D. Bacterial adaptive strategies to cope with metal toxicity in the contaminated environment—A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 226, 112863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pal, C.; Asiani, K.; Arya, S.; Rensing, C.; Stekel, D.J.; Larsson, D.G.J.; Hobman, J.L. Metal resistance and its association with antibiotic resistance. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 2017, 70, 261–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shelton, A.N.; Seth, E.C.; Mok, K.C.; Han, A.W.; Jackson, S.N.; Haft, D.R.; Taga, M.E. Uneven distribution of cobamide biosynthesis and dependence in bacteria predicted by comparative genomics. ISME J. 2019, 13, 789–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Toledano, M.B.; Huang, B. Microbial 2-Cys peroxiredoxins: Insights into their complex physiological roles. Mol. Cells 2016, 39, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kosiorek, M.; Wyszkowski, M. Effect of cobalt on the environment and living organisms—A review. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 11419–11449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with nickel, cadmium and cobalt. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2021, 23, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J.; Wyszkowska, J. Biological activity of soil contaminated with cobalt, tin, and molybdenum. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Barras, F.; Fontecave, M. Cobalt stress in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica: Molecular bases for toxicity and resistance. Metallomics 2011, 3, 1130–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J.; Wyszkowska, J. Brown algae and basalt meal in maintaining the activity of arylsulfatase of soil polluted with cadmium. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Muhammad, H.; Wei, T.; Cao, G.; Yu, S.H.; Ren, X.H.; Jia, H.L.; Saleem, A.; Hua, L.; Guo, J.K.; Li, Y. Study of soil microorganisms modified wheat straw and biochar for reducing cadmium leaching potential and bioavailability. Chemosphere 2021, 273, 129644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gunina, A.; Kuzyakov, Y. Sugars in soil and sweets for microorganisms: Review of origin, content, composition and fate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 90, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Virk, A.L.; Kan, Z.-R.; Liu, B.-Y.; Qi, J.-Y.; He, C.; Liu, Q.-Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H.-L. Impact of biochar water extract addition on soil organic carbon mineralization and C fractions in different tillage systems. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 21, 101193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sandhu, S.S.; Dan, U.; Kumar, S.; Chintala, R.; Papiernik, S.K.; Malo, D.D.; Schumacher, T.E. Analyzing the impacts of three types of biochar on soil carbon fractions and physiochemical properties in a corn-soybean rotation. Chemosphere 2017, 184, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Steiner, C.; Das, K.C.; Garcia, M.; Förster, B.; Zech, W. Charcoal and smoke extract stimulate the soil microbial community in a highly weathered xanthic Ferralsol. Pedobiologia 2008, 51, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ma, C.; Ci, K.; Zhu, J.; Sun, Z.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Tang, C.; Wang, P.; Liu, Z. Impacts of exogenous mineral silicon on cadmium migration and transformation in the soil-rice system and on soil health. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 759, 143501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Roces, E.; Muñiz-Menéndez, M.; González-Galindo, J.; Estaire, J. Lightweight expanded clay aggregate properties based on laboratory testing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 313, 27–125486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mlih, R.; Bydalek, F.; Klumpp, E.; Yaghi, N.; Bol, R.; Wenk, J. Light-expanded clay aggregate (LECA) as a substrate in constructed wetlands—A review. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 148, 105783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zwikel, S.; Lavee, H.; Sarah, P. Temporal dynamics in arylsulfatase enzyme activity in various microenvironments along a climatic transect in Israel. Geoderma 2007, 140, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wallenstein, M.D.; Burns, R.G. Ecology of extracellular enzyme activities and organic matter degradation in soil: A complex community-driven process. In Methods of Soil Enzymology; Dick, R.P., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2011; pp. 35–55. [Google Scholar]
  96. Yuan, B.; Yue, D. Soil microbial and enzymatic activities across a chronosequence of Chinese pine plantation development on the loess plateau of China. Pedosphere 2012, 22, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pan, F.; Zhang, W.; Liang, Y.; Liu, S.; Wang, K. Increased associated effects of topography and litter and soil nutrients on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass along vegetation successions in karst ecosystem, southwestern China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 16979–16990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Moeskops, B.; Buchan, D.; Sleutel, S.; Herawaty, L.; Husen, E.; Saraswati, R.; Setyorini, D.; de Neve, S. Soil microbial communities and activities under intensive organic and conventional vegetable farming in West Java, Indonesia. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 45, 112120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Qiu, X.; Wang, J.; Shi, D.; Li, S.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, F. Syntheses, urease inhibition activities, and fluorescent properties of transition metal complexes. J. Coord. Chem. 2013, 66, 1616–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sun, Y.; Zhao, D.; Xu, Y.; Wang, L.; Liang, X.; Shen, Y. Effects of sepiolite on stabilization remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil and its ecological evaluation. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2016, 10, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Chao, H.P.; Chen, S.H. Adsorption characteristics of both cationic and oxyanionic metal ions on hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide-modified NaY zeolite. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 193–194, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jimenez-Castaneda, M.E.; Medina, D.I. Use of surfactant modified zeolites and clays for the removal of heavy metals from water. Water 2017, 9, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yuan, P.; Tan, D.; Annabi-Bergaya, F. Properties and applications of halloysite nanotubes: Recent research advances and future prospects. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 112, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sun, Y.; Sun, G.; Xu, Y.; Wang, L.; Liang, X.; Lin, D. Assessment of sepiolite for immobilization of cadmiumcontaminated soils. Geoderma 2013, 193–194, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Abad-Valle, P.; Álvarez-Ayuso, E.; Murciego, A.; Pellitero, E. Assessment of the use of sepiolite amendment to restore heavy metal polluted mine soil. Geoderma 2016, 280, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Forte, J.; Mutiti, S. Phytoremediation potential of Helianthus annuus and Hydrangea paniculata in copper and lead-contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 29954–29966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Rizvi, H.; Rinklebe, J.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Meers, E.; Ok, Y.S.; Ishaque, W. Phytomanagement of heavy metals in contaminate soils using sunflower—A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 46, 1498–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Palit, S.; Sharma, A.; Talukder, G. Effects of cobalt on plants. Bot. Rev. 1994, 60, 149–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Che, Z.; Rehman, A.; Cheema, S.A.; Sharma, A.; Song, H.; Rehman, S.; Zhaorong, D. Role of 24-epibrassinolide (EBL) in mediating heavy metal and pesticide induced oxidative stress in plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 935–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bashir, S.; Zhu, J.; Fu, Q.; Hu, H. Cadmium mobility, uptake and anti-oxidative response of water spinach (Ipomoea aquatic) under rice straw biochar, zeolite and rock phosphate as amendments. Chemosphere 2018, 194, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ouariti, O.; Gouia, H.; Ghorbal, M.H. Responses of bean and tomato plants to cadmium—growth, mineral nutrition, and nitrate reduction. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 1997, 35, 347–354. [Google Scholar]
  112. Weryszko-Chmielewska, E.; Chwil, M. Lead-Induced histological and ultrastructural changes in the leaves of soybean (Glycine max L.) Merr.). J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2005, 51, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kim, J.-Y.; Oh, S.; Park, Y.-K. Overview of biochar production from preservative treated wood with detailed analysis of biochar characteristics, heavy metal behavior, and their ecotoxicity. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 384, 121356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Contribution of independent variables on the number of microorganisms and activity of soil enzymes (η2): Ad—adsorbent, Hm—heavy metal ions. Org—organotrophic bacteria, Act—actinomycetes, Fun—fungi, Deh—dehydrogenases, Cat—catalase, Pac—acid phosphatase, Pal—alkaline phosphatase, Glu—β-glucosidase, Aryl—arylsulphatase.
Figure 1. Contribution of independent variables on the number of microorganisms and activity of soil enzymes (η2): Ad—adsorbent, Hm—heavy metal ions. Org—organotrophic bacteria, Act—actinomycetes, Fun—fungi, Deh—dehydrogenases, Cat—catalase, Pac—acid phosphatase, Pal—alkaline phosphatase, Glu—β-glucosidase, Aryl—arylsulphatase.
Materials 15 05738 g001
Figure 2. Effect of soil contamination with cadmium (Cd2+) and cobalt (Co2+) on the colony development index (CD) of (a) organotrophic bacteria (Org), (b) actinomycetes (Act) and (c) fungi (Fun). C0—uncontaminated soil, Cd—cadmium ion, Co—cobalt ion. C—control, M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite. Homogeneous groups denoted with letters (a–f) were calculated separately for each pair of independent variables.
Figure 2. Effect of soil contamination with cadmium (Cd2+) and cobalt (Co2+) on the colony development index (CD) of (a) organotrophic bacteria (Org), (b) actinomycetes (Act) and (c) fungi (Fun). C0—uncontaminated soil, Cd—cadmium ion, Co—cobalt ion. C—control, M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite. Homogeneous groups denoted with letters (a–f) were calculated separately for each pair of independent variables.
Materials 15 05738 g002
Figure 3. Effect of soil contamination with cadmium (Cd2+) and cobalt (Co2+) on the colony diversity index (EP) of (a) organotrophic bacteria (Org), (b) actinomycetes (Act) and (c) fungi (Fun). C0—uncontaminated soil, Cd—cadmium ion, Co—cobalt ion. C0—uncontaminated soil, Cd—cadmium ion, Co—cobalt ion. C—control, M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite. Homogeneous groups denoted with letters (a–f) were calculated separately for each pair of independent variables.
Figure 3. Effect of soil contamination with cadmium (Cd2+) and cobalt (Co2+) on the colony diversity index (EP) of (a) organotrophic bacteria (Org), (b) actinomycetes (Act) and (c) fungi (Fun). C0—uncontaminated soil, Cd—cadmium ion, Co—cobalt ion. C0—uncontaminated soil, Cd—cadmium ion, Co—cobalt ion. C—control, M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite. Homogeneous groups denoted with letters (a–f) were calculated separately for each pair of independent variables.
Materials 15 05738 g003aMaterials 15 05738 g003b
Figure 4. Indexes of the influence of heavy metals on the activity of enzymes (IFHm). (a) dehydrogenases (Deh), (b) catalase (Cat), (c) urease (Ure), (d) acid phosphatase (Pac), (e) alkaline phosphatase (Pal), (f) arylsulfatase (Aryl), (g) β-glucosidase (Glu). M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite, C—soil not contamination, Cd—ion Cd2+, Co—Co2+.
Figure 4. Indexes of the influence of heavy metals on the activity of enzymes (IFHm). (a) dehydrogenases (Deh), (b) catalase (Cat), (c) urease (Ure), (d) acid phosphatase (Pac), (e) alkaline phosphatase (Pal), (f) arylsulfatase (Aryl), (g) β-glucosidase (Glu). M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite, C—soil not contamination, Cd—ion Cd2+, Co—Co2+.
Materials 15 05738 g004
Figure 5. Indexes of the influence of sorbents on the activity of enzymes (IFAd). (a) dehydrogenases (Deh), (b) catalase (Cat), (c) urease (Ure), (d) acid phosphatase (Pac), (e) alkaline phosphatase (Pal), (f) arylsulfatase (Aryl), (g) β-glucosidase (Glu), M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite, C—soil not contamination, Cd—ion Cd2+, Co—Co2+.3.3. The Reaction Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) to Cd2+ and Co2+.
Figure 5. Indexes of the influence of sorbents on the activity of enzymes (IFAd). (a) dehydrogenases (Deh), (b) catalase (Cat), (c) urease (Ure), (d) acid phosphatase (Pac), (e) alkaline phosphatase (Pal), (f) arylsulfatase (Aryl), (g) β-glucosidase (Glu), M—molecular sieve, H—halloysite, S—sepiolite, E—expanded clay, B—biochar, Z—zeolite, C—soil not contamination, Cd—ion Cd2+, Co—Co2+.3.3. The Reaction Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) to Cd2+ and Co2+.
Materials 15 05738 g005aMaterials 15 05738 g005b
Figure 6. Helianthus annuus L. in the BBCH phase 34.
Figure 6. Helianthus annuus L. in the BBCH phase 34.
Materials 15 05738 g006
Figure 7. Index of the influence of heavy metals (IFHm) on the yield of (a) aboveground parts, (b) roots of plants.
Figure 7. Index of the influence of heavy metals (IFHm) on the yield of (a) aboveground parts, (b) roots of plants.
Materials 15 05738 g007
Figure 8. Index of the influence of adsorbents (IFAd) on the yield of the part (a) aboveground plants, (b) roots of plants.
Figure 8. Index of the influence of adsorbents (IFAd) on the yield of the part (a) aboveground plants, (b) roots of plants.
Materials 15 05738 g008
Table 1. Some properties of the soil and compost used in the experiment.
Table 1. Some properties of the soil and compost used in the experiment.
AbbreviationPropertiesUnitSoilMethodical Literature
Chemical and physicochemical properties
Ntottotal nitrogeng kg−1 d.m.1.07[49]
Corgorganic carbong kg−1 d.m.14.69[50]
Pphosphorusmg kg−1 d.m.166.72[51]
Kpotassiummg kg−1 d.m.171.31[51]
Mgmagnesiummg kg−1 d.m.443.21[52]
Cdcadmiummg kg−1 d.m.0.56[53]
Cocobaltmg kg−1 d.m.7.21[53]
pHpHKCl—soil reaction-6.00[54]
EBCsum of exchangeable base cationsmmol (+) kg−1 d.m.145.00[55]
HAChydrolytic aciditymmol (+) kg−1 d.m.13.50[55]
CECcation exchange capacitymmol (+) kg−1 d.m.158.50[55]
ACSalkaline cation saturation%91.49[55]
Microorganisms number per 1 kg d.m.
Orgorganotrophic bacteriacfu18.192 × 109[56]
Actactinomycescfu11.931 × 109[57]
Funfungicfu5.374 × 107[58]
Enzymatic activity per 1 kg d.m. h−1
Dehdehydrogenasesµmol TPF3.124[59]
Catcatalasemol O20.304[60]
Ureureasemmol N-NH40.492[61]
Pacacid phosphatasemmol PN1.168[61]
Palalkaline phosphatasemmol PN1.014[61]
Gluβ-glucosidasemmol PN0.492[61]
Arylarylsulphatasemmol PN0.140[61]
Table 2. Greenness index (SPAD).
Table 2. Greenness index (SPAD).
ObjectC0CdCo
Control35.988 ab21.625 d–f4.450 g
Molecular sieve34.713 a29.563 bc28.313 b–d
Halloysite38.638 a19.588 ef21.325 d–f
Sepiolite35.175 ab25.413 c–e22.963 c–e
Expanded clay35.238 ab24.275 c–e14.563 f
Biochar39.138 a22.975 c–e19.438 ef
Zeolite33.488 a20.213 ef14.525 f
Homogeneous groups denoted with letters (a–f).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J. Evaluation of the Usefulness of Sorbents in the Remediation of Soil Exposed to the Pressure of Cadmium and Cobalt. Materials 2022, 15, 5738. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15165738

AMA Style

Wyszkowska J, Borowik A, Zaborowska M, Kucharski J. Evaluation of the Usefulness of Sorbents in the Remediation of Soil Exposed to the Pressure of Cadmium and Cobalt. Materials. 2022; 15(16):5738. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15165738

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wyszkowska, Jadwiga, Agata Borowik, Magdalena Zaborowska, and Jan Kucharski. 2022. "Evaluation of the Usefulness of Sorbents in the Remediation of Soil Exposed to the Pressure of Cadmium and Cobalt" Materials 15, no. 16: 5738. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15165738

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop